deletions | additions       diff --git a/spinning followup.tex b/spinning followup.tex  index 9310099..fb4886e 100644  --- a/spinning followup.tex  +++ b/spinning followup.tex 
...
\citet{Singer_2014} details the detection, low-latency localization, and medium-latency (i.e.\ non-spinning) follow-up of the simulated signals in 2015. In this work we perform the expensive task of full parameter estimation that accounts for non-zero compact-object spin. Whereas \citet{Singer_2014} used the (non-spinning) TaylorF2 waveform model, we make use of the SpinTaylorT4 waveform model \citep{Buonanno_2003,Buonanno_2009}, parameterized by the fifteen parameters that uniquely define a circularized compact binary inspiral.\footnote{The fifteen parameters are two masses (either component masses or the chirp mass and mass ratio); six spin parameters describing the two spins (magnitudes and orientations); two coordinates for sky position; distance; an inclination angle; a polarization angle; a reference time, and the orbital phase at this time \citep[see][for more details]{Veitch_2014}. The masses and spins are intrinsic parameters which control the evolution of the binary, the others are extrinsic parameters which describe its orientation and position.}  We assume the objects to be point masses with no tidal interactions. The estimation of tidal parameters using post-Newtonian approximations is rife with systematic uncertainties that are comparable in magnitude to statistical uncertainties \citep{Wade_2014}. \citep{Yagi_2014,Wade_2014}.  Though marginalizing over uncertainties in tidal parameters can affect estimates of other parameters, the fact that tidal interactions only impact the evolution of the binary at late times (only having a measurable impact at frequencies above $\sim450~\mathrm{Hz}$; \citealt{Hinderer_2010}) limits both their measurability and the resulting biases in other parameter estimates caused by ignoring them \cite{Damour_2012}. The simulated population of BNS systems contains slowly spinning NSs, with masses between $1.2~\mathrm{M}_\odot$ and $1.6~\mathrm{M}_\odot$ and spin magnitudes $\chi < 0.05$. This choice was motivated by the characteristics of NSs found thus far in Galactic BNS systems expected to merge within a Hubble time through GW emission. However, neutron stars \emph{outside} of BNS systems have been observed with spins as high as $\chi = 0.4$ \citep{Hessels_2006,Brown_2012}, and depending on the neutron-star equation of state (EOS) could theoretically have spins as high as $\chi \lesssim 0.7$ \citep{Lo_2011} without breaking up. For these reasons, the prior assumptions used for Bayesian inference of source parameters are more broad than the spin range of the simulated source population. 
...
where $P_{\Omega}(\boldsymbol{\Omega})$ is the posterior PDF over sky position $\boldsymbol{\Omega}$, and $A$ is the sky area integrated over \citep{Sidery_2014}. We also consider the searched area $A_\ast$, the area of the smallest credible region that includes the true location.  \end{itemize}    To check that differences between our spinning and non-spinning analyses were a consequence of the inclusion of spin and not because of a difference between waveform approximants, we also ran SpinTaylorT4 analyses with spins fixed to $\chi_{1,~2}=0$. There were no significant differences in parameter estimation between the non-spinning TaylorF2 and zero-spin SpinTaylorT4 results for any of the quantities we examined.\footnote{Using as an example the chirp mass, the most precisely inferred parameter, we can compare the effects of switch from a non-spinning to a spinning analysis to those from switching waveform approximants by comparing the difference the posterior means $\langle \mathcal{M}_\mathrm{c}\rangle$. The difference between means from the SpinTaylorT4 analyses with and without spin, is an order of magnitude greater than the difference between the zero-spin SpinTaylorT4 and TaylorF2 analyses: defining the log-ratio $\xi = \log_{10}(|\langle \mathcal{M}_\mathrm{c}\rangle^\mathrm{S} - \mathcal{M}_\mathrm{c}\rangle^0|/|\langle \mathcal{M}_\mathrm{c}\rangle^\mathrm{NS} - \mathcal{M}_\mathrm{c}\rangle^0|)$, where the superscripts $\mathrm{S}$, $0$ and $\mathrm{NS}$ indicates results of the fully spinning SpinTaylorT4, the zero-spin SpinTaylorT4 and the non-spinning TaylorF2 analyses respectively, the mean (median) value of $\xi$ is $0.90$ ($1.03$), and $92.8\%$ of events have $\xi > 0$ (indicating that the shift in the mean from introducing spin is larger than the shift from switching approximants).} Therefore, we only use the TaylorF2 results to illustrate the effects of neglecting spin.